The Supreme Court is back in session as of Monday October 7th and they have a case before them in Snope v. Brown that could end all bans nationwide. This comes from a 4th circuit decision upholding the Maryland ban.

During a recent interview with Scripps News, the Director of the OGVP admitted that at some time within the next couple weeks we will get new executive actions. Some of which will address the BPSCA and some will be "wholly new".

In this video I break down important developments in rifle and mag ban cases moving forward towards Supreme Court review!

In this video I break down an important "assault weapon" ban case seeking Supreme Court review!

There are dozens of big cases working their way through the court system in California right now, like Duncan v Bonta and Miller. However there is one that isn't talked about enough that is challenging the 10 day waiting period and that case is Richards v. Bonta

Darrell Issa (Ca) and Elise Stefanik (NY) with several other co-sponsors have introduced a bill in congress to overturn California's "roster". This Federal legislation would also overturn any other state "roster" and prevent states from implementing new ones.

This video from Copper Jacket TV discusses the worsening state of gun control in California, highlighting that the state has over 100 gun laws, making it one of the most restrictive for Second Amendment rights. There's a new bill introduced by California Congressman Darl Issa and New York Congresswoman Elise Stefanik aimed at overturning handgun rosters, which limit the types of handguns available for sale based on stringent safety features. These rosters are unconstitutional and a way to undermine gun rights. The bill seeks to prevent any state from enforcing such restrictions and to overturn existing ones. Support this initiative by contacting your representatives.

A recent decision by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court on switchblades is poised to have significant ramifications within the Second Amendment community. The court's ruling is particularly impactful because Massachusetts broadly defines "switchblade" to include not only traditional switchblades and out-the-front knives but also any spring-assisted folding knife—a category encompassing many common knives.

The case in question began on July 3, 2020, when a person was arrested, and during a post-arrest search, a spring-assisted knife was found on his person. The individual was subsequently charged with possessing a dangerous weapon, as switchblades are deemed dangerous per se under Massachusetts law. He appealed, arguing that the Second Amendment covers all bearable arms, and the case eventually reached the Supreme Judicial Court.

The court's ruling has surprised many residents of Massachusetts and could potentially dismantle aspects of the state's strict gun control laws. This development is particularly concerning for those aligned with the state's liberal policies. The court's decision suggests a new legal avenue for Second Amendment groups to pursue lawsuits at the state level, which could mirror the success of recent federal cases.

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court concluded that folding pocket knives, including those commonly known as switchblades, are protected under the Second Amendment. The court referenced the Bruen decision, which has begun to influence state-level rulings, including in Massachusetts. The court determined that the Massachusetts law prohibiting the carrying of switchblade knives could not stand because it did not align with the nation's historical tradition of arms regulation.

This decision could have broader implications, particularly for cases like the Donal case in Lowell, Massachusetts, where a New Hampshire resident was charged for carrying a firearm without a Massachusetts permit. Given New Hampshire's constitutional carry laws, the individual argued that his Second Amendment rights should not be infringed simply because he crossed state lines. The initial ruling favored the defendant, and Massachusetts is currently appealing, but the state is expected to lose due to the broader implications of the Supreme Judicial Court's decision.

Massachusetts has become one of the most anti-gun states in the U.S., even surpassing California in some respects. The state's new laws have imposed stringent restrictions, turning previously legal firearms into contraband and raising the stakes for legal challenges. Federal lawsuits have been filed, and more are expected, as the state's gun control measures face increasing scrutiny.

For residents of Massachusetts, this is a critical moment to support legal efforts to overturn these laws. Local groups, like the Gun Owners Action League, are at the forefront of this fight and need help gathering signatures for petitions and mobilizing voters. With the deadline for voter registration approaching in October, it is crucial for citizens to take action to protect their rights.

In conclusion, this ruling marks a significant victory for the Second Amendment in Massachusetts, and the impact is likely to resonate across the country. It's a reminder of the importance of staying informed and involved in the ongoing fight to protect constitutional rights.

In a decision by the District Court in CRPA v. LASD the judge has ruled that California must begin issuing Non Resident carry permits and has approximately one month to come up with a plan to do so. This does not force reciprocity with other permits but is a huge step in the right direction.

The video from Copper Jacket TV discusses recent developments in a legal case involving California's restrictive gun laws. There are both positive and negative outcomes from the case CRPA vs. LASD (Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department). The positive outcome is that California has been ordered to create a system allowing non-residents to apply for a permit to carry firearms within the state. However, the court did not grant full reciprocity, meaning that out-of-state permits will not automatically be recognized in California. Additionally, the ruling only partially addresses issues like excessive wait times and high fees associated with obtaining permits and applying relief to only two named plaintiffs rather than all affected individuals. While this ruling is a step forward, California may still impose onerous requirements on non-residents seeking permits.

According to the NAGR and a subsequent video posted by Hanna Hill, Executive Director, the NSSF bailed on a very important case challenging Colorado's mag ban, forcing it to be withdrawn.

NAGR Video Response -

California Attorney General Rob Bonta recently discussed a new plan with millions in new funding to increase confiscations from 9 different protective orders including GVRO's. San Diego touting 3,700 items confiscated to date with an "expansion" to come.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. You guys are going to want to stick around for this one—it is absolutely outrageous. I just watched a press conference with Attorney General Rob Bonta from the state of California, and they're not even trying to hide it anymore. Mass confiscation in the state of California is absolutely underway, and you guys are going to want to see this. So let's talk about it.

Hey, real quick before we get started, if you're somebody who carries to defend yourself or your loved ones, make sure that you don't go it alone. Make sure you have somebody that's got your back, like Attorneys on Retainer. Attorneys on Retainer is not an insurance company; they're actual attorneys. So if you have an incident, and you have to defend yourself, you give Attorneys on Retainer a call. You speak to an actual attorney on the phone, and they will be there to defend you, even if it's questionable. Unlike some insurance-backed programs that may have to run it through the insurance company first to ensure coverage, that's not going to happen with Attorneys on Retainer. You have an incident, you call them, and they are there to defend you, even if it's in a gun-free zone or something like that. It is absolutely priceless to have in your wallet—get that Attorneys on Retainer card, be a member just like I am, and have that extra peace of mind when you go out.

Now, like me, a lot of us don't have that disposable income to hire a good quality attorney if something happens, so if you would like that peace of mind, check the description box down below.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. This press conference, which took place in San Diego with the district attorney, talked a lot about what they have already done in terms of confiscation numbers. It also talked about a new influx of cash from the federal government that is going to help them push the future of confiscation, and they're actually calling it 2.0—so this is like their second round. The things that they said in this press conference were shocking and eye-opening, and I think something that people need to see.

I mean, check this out: in San Diego alone, GVROs have helped them take 3,700 weapons off the streets. The district attorney proudly announced that their region has received more than $4 million in state grant funds, and that this funding will lead to one of the most significant expansions of gun violence prevention work in California since GVRO laws passed 10 years ago. My office refers to this effort as Gun Violence Prevention 2.0. The grant funds will help us better identify dangerous people so that we can get court orders requiring them to surrender their firearms. We will expand our work not just to GVROs but to all California gun-prohibiting civil orders.

You can see from that press conference alone that she is extremely excited that they've taken 3,700 firearms from people who haven't been convicted of anything yet. Remember, these are just accusations at this point, right? Then she openly says that they're going to use that money to try and identify even more people that they can then disarm without due process. But that's not the end of it. As a matter of fact, they've even created a new task force, and this task force is intended to go and take them from you. We will expand our work not just to GVROs but to all California gun-prohibiting civil orders, and then, with the assistance of the newly formed San Diego Countywide Gun Relinquishment Task Force, we will make sure that the firearms are surrendered.

Now, don't think this is just San Diego—this is all of California. As a matter of fact, Attorney General Rob Bonta, when he spoke, said that this is a time to celebrate and that they're going to take full advantage of not just GVROs, but nine different protective orders that would have somebody's Second Amendment rights removed from them. Today is a day to celebrate the expansion of that work, of that impact that San Diego has already had in the city, and now it's going regional—full use of all nine of the protective orders that remove firearms from folks who, after due process in a court order, have been deemed to be too dangerous and unsafe to have the firearm. So, removed legally, appropriately, to keep our community safe.

Now, everybody's been saying this, and I've been saying this on this channel for about 13 years now: registration leads to confiscation. How do you think California knows that people have what they have? Well, because in the state of California, everything that you get has to be registered, and if you register it, the state basically has this database that says, okay, so-and-so was served this protective order, and under his name, we have these registered items. So they know exactly what's there before they even knock on your door. So, registration has officially led to confiscation, and this is a prime example of that, and it's a prime example for every state that has red flag laws across the country. If there is some type of registration, the state's going to know exactly what you have, and they're going to come get it.

That's the core of the problem that we have here—it's not just that registration leads to confiscation, it's that the confiscation is happening, and people aren't making as big of a stink about this as they absolutely need to be. Again, this is just somebody who's been accused of something. In the state of California, simply acquiring armor could be enough to get you accused. If your neighbor happens to see it, or somebody you live with doesn't like the fact that you got a plate, or a shield, I mean, who knows, right? If they don't like that, they can use that in order to file one of these orders against you.

So, it has come down to the fact that thousands upon thousands—and again, that 3,700, that's just San Diego, we're not talking about statewide—statewide, the numbers are in the tens of thousands. But if you take a look at that, we're talking about tens of thousands that have been confiscated just based on accusations alone, with no due process. I know that they like to say this protects due process, but if I don't find out about something that's being done against my rights until the knock is on the door, or a paper shows up in the mail saying there's going to be a knock on the door, then due process doesn't exist. You know, it's just a matter of somebody accusing and a judge signing it—that's all there is to it.

So again, this is something that really needs to be on the forefront. It needs to be stopped, it needs to be overturned, and we need to put an end to these confiscations right now. The best thing you could do is always, you know, write, send an email, join the groups that are standing up to support you—CRPA, GOA, FPC, all these different groups that are there trying to combat this stuff. It's very important to be part of the solution and not just sit back and go, "Wow, that sucks," because you never know—just one little small thing, and it could be used.

So, I wanted to make you guys aware of that because I think this is a bigger deal than people are making it. We need to overturn this type of law absolutely right now. I want to thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.